Stealth socialism: Obama’s past as the key to his plans for our future
For several years now, the distinguished journalist Stanley Kurtz has been endeavoring to answer a simple question: Who is Barack Obama? It is not an easy question to answer.
Back in August of ’08 when Obamamania swept the country, Mr. Kurtz was patiently looking into the murky abyss that is the history and background of our 44th president. The chap who during the campaign presented himself as a “post-partisan,” “post-racial” uniter of America was, when you scratched the surface, pretty much what Winston Churchill said of Russia in the 1930s: a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. What, after all, did we really know about this freshman senator from Illinois? His upbringing was — was what? We don’t know much about the who, what, where, or when, do we? A Kenyan father and American mother. Some years in Indonesia. And what about his education? We have the place names: Occidental, Columbia, Harvard: but what did he study, how did he do? We don’t really know, do we? Later on? We know that he began his political career in the living room of that “just a guy in the neighborhood” domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers. We know that he was a faithful congregant and financial supporter of Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. But somehow that wasn’t relevant to the mass hysteria that catapulted this greenest (in two senses of that much-abused word) of politicians into the Oval Office.
One thing we do know about this international man of mystery is that he stood before his acolytes at the end of October 2008 and told them they were on the verge of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” As I’ve previously had occasion to observe in this space, this was no hustings hyperbole: it was, depending on your point of view, an earnest promise or an earnest threat. The last 19 months, in any event, have demonstrated that fundamentally transforming the United States of America has been an ambition that Obama has struggled mightily to fulfill.
It is still — just barely, but still — too early to say with certainty how successful Obama has been at dismantling the old America and replacing it with the new, greener, less assertive, much poorer, and much more regulated and conformist America of his dreams. The full damage report may be sharply revised come November. But for anyone seeking to understand what manner of beast we are conjuring with in Obama, Stanley Kurtz’s new book Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism is essential reading. The book, which will be officially published October 19, is a meticulous work of political archeology, an excavation of Obama’s radical roots and socialist affiliations, from ACORN to the United Neighborhood Organization in Chicago.
I think we already know who Mr. Obama is,the problem now is, to stop him. Nov.2nd may begin that process
Right!!!
You are right, Pedro, at least for those who are paying attention. At my local Tea Party meeting last night, we had 10-12 new folks who came to see what it was all about, and 8 signed up as members. When I went to my first meeting a bit more than a year ago, there were about 25 people there. Last night, there were well over 125. Last month’s meeting had to be moved to a new venue because we had outgrown our previous meeting place.
We are becoming more organized, as we are a part of the Federation of Virginia Tea Party Patriots, an affiliation of at least 30 local groups, who are having our convention in Richmond this weekend. You will probably not hear much of it in the LSM, but there were over 2000 in attendance for this evening’s speakers. There should be more tomorrow. As much as the “progressives” (socialists) hate it, we are getting our act together, and we will provide an antidote to their leftist “community organizers” in an overwhelming fashion.
I would like to thank all of my fellow Patriots who stand up for our Constitution and the principles of our country’s founding, in every locality, in every state. It is indeed We The People who will save our great country from “creeping socialism”, and return us to our roots. We must remain committed, and active. We must encourage those who agree, but are hesitant. We must let our like-minded friends and neighbors know that their concerns are shared by many, and that they are not only welcome to join us, but that they are needed. We can turn this around folks, but it takes action. Get involved!
Not a fact in Kimball’s article.
And the rest of you are also fantasists.
DMS190
As usual, from your ilk (you might want to look that up), mere assertion.
Back up those assertions, chapter and verse, please.
Kurtz wrote some excellent articles for NRO on Obama, education, and his time at the Annenberg Challenge foundation, where, try as he might to minimize it, he worked closely with Ayers to “reform” Chicago education. The Obama campaign was clearly afraid of what Kurtz was uncovering, as they orchestrated an astroturf call-in campaign to shout him down during Chicago radio appearances. I imagine this book builds on that earlier work; it should be fascinating reading.
Roger:
I’m not sure how “famously” comes into play here in your misattribution to Thomas Mann of what is indeed a famous quote, albeit an oft-paraphrased one, of William Faulkner. What Faulkner wrote, for a specific character, attorney Gavin Stevens, to state in his 1951 novel “Requiem for a Nun,” is, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Mann wrote something very different. Or rather wrote something very different for one of *his* characters to state. In the novella Disorder and Early Sorrow” (“Unordnung und frühes Leid”) of 1925, Professor Abel Cornelius summarizes his view of history as, in Mrs. Lowe-Porter’s translation, “The past is immortalized; that is to say, it is dead; and death is the root of all godliness and all abiding significance.”
People today, whether of “the Right” or “the Left” write so much, so often, and on so many subjects, that it seems they leave themselves little time to do so with care. I can’t share your views of President Obama, but I would hope that you would tend better to the literary quotes you use to try to support them.
Best wishes,
Andrew Patner — Chicago
Who knew of the Faulkner Copyright Protection Society?
Please reassure us, Andrew Patner, et. al., that that none of you assert that “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” is an unprecedented insight discovered by your 20th century oracle.
Countless ancient Greek, Roman, Medieval, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and countless other subsequent writers well-known and less well-known have also put forth such a banal observation. If attribution has such importance, please do a little more research.
Roger– Just a typo–the word “questions” in the final sentence of the first paragraph should be singular, i.e., “question”.
Nice piece. On the money as usual. Just one thing. That bit about ‘the past isn’t dead’ is usually attributed to Faulkner. I think it’s in Requiem for a Nun.
Should His Holy Greeness be elected to a second term of office, God help us.
Re: Faulkner.
From my copy of Novels 1942-1952:
STEVENS
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past” (535).
Stealth & disinformation has been the modus operandi for a considerable time; consider the advice of former NY Times editor Howell Raines to candidate John Kerry in 2004 (published in The Guardian): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29179041/
Raines writes: As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, “I am not a redistributionist Democrat. That’s actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat.”
Obama was simply better at the game than the pompous Kerry (whom I always looked at as the modern day version of Miles Gloriosus — the guy who fought in Vietnam, denounced the war, got into politics, married a rich rich rich rich widow, and then ran for POTUS boasting about his experience the war he had previously denounced).
‘domestic’ terrorist? no. terrorist. period. full #@$%^ing stop. And why are he and his terrorist wife free? untried?
Our citizens have become Zombiefied because of stealth socialism, imposed upon our brainwashed masses by the ‘education czar’ of the 20th century and Socialist Party of America Candidate, Norman Mattoon Thomas who preciently proclaimed:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
Evil.
~ The Infidel Alliance
That quote reminds me of another quote by Huey Long,”if fascism ever comes to the US it will be called anti-fascism”.
Comment #10. The Infidel Alliance
You have it on the button!
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Fascism. But under the name of ‘conservatism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Fascist program, until one day America will be a Fascist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
I reworked the wording a little bit, but its just as prescient.
“It is still — just barely, but still — too early to say with certainty how successful Obama has been at dismantling the old America and replacing it with the new, greener, less assertive, much poorer, and much more regulated and conformist America of his dreams.”
You know, it’s not often you read words that hit you in the gut like a hammer. Think about that, a “greener, less assertive, much poorer, and much more regulated and conformist America.” Did you ever think we, as Americans, would even be saying those words? I’m not joking here, but I started to get a little misty as I went over those words. Is the America that I grew up with in the 1960s gone? Have we settled on being no better than France and has American exceptionalism, the very thing that made us a superpower, gone forever?
No, no, no, AND no!!! I’m not a quitter. You are not a quitter. And together we certainly are NOT going to quit on America. The Democrats have brought us to the edge of poverty, government dependence, and to a place where government regulation and taxes are designed to enlarge the Federal government, rather than simply protect the people. These are dangerous people now in Washington, bureaucrats that treasure their jobs rather than the principles that made this nation great.
I, for one, am not about to take this. I am determined to put an end to this madness. I will vote, convince others to vote, and work for candidates who feel the same way I do. Inaction is not an option anymore. If you just sit there and do nothing, you will betray all of the incredible rights that were handed to you by previous generations, and neither you nor I have the right to do that. We have a responsibility to defend the Constitution to our dying breath and we need to educate the current generation on how important it is to stand up for these rights and to protect them, so that future generations can not only enjoy their benefits, but appreciate their value.
You can do it, America. This nation needs you now. You, yes you, can make this difference. Stuff envelopes, make calls, get out there and show people that there still are individuals in this country that will not stand idly by as more and more far-let liberals try to make America what it is not, a bankrupt European-style nanny state.
We can start making a difference in November. But this energy and work needs to continue into 2012 and well beyond, because there is lots to do and, unfortunately, not a lot of time in which to do it. So take the first step and get off the mat. We may be down but we’re certainly not out. Show previous generations that we too can take it and that we, too, can fight back to protect this country we love so well.
AMEN!!!! I’ve gotten off the couch, and completely changed my focus. It will be a long, uphill battle to restore the republic, but joining the fight has changed my pessimism to enthusiastic optimism.
Your words brought tears to my eyes…
How many of us are left to wave Old Glory in the face of adversity? How many do we have left to hold the fort? How do we overcome what has become an international war against our principles?
Let us look back into history for the answer..
The 13 colonies of America took down the strongest government in the world to secure its independence. If the election fails us with not-honest principles, then we may witness in our lifetimes the fracturing of America. The day may come soon when we are divided as states because of the federal government’s interference and totalitarian aims.
I’m sure this is obvious to any patriot who WILL take up arms, but my fellow countrymen…Washington D.C is as England was to the colonies. It is time to prepare for war.
The USA is the greatest country in the world because we work out our problems by the ballot box, not by taking up arms. What are your plans? Blowing up suburban neighborhoods? Strapping bombs on your person and walking into a Democratic Headquarters? Loading a Ryder truck with manure and blowing up a Federal Building? Are you a terrorist?
“Is the America that I grew up with in the 1960s gone?” Ah yes the Vietnam travesty, rioting in the streets, JFK and RFK and MLK murdered, a president who used the FBI and CIA as his own personal political police force, crime reaching epidemic proportions, crazy radicals promising an overthrow of the government, black churches being burned to the ground, Jim Crow laws still in effect, segregated schools, etc, etc. The music was pretty good though.
Per the Quaran – in fact lies are acceptable in order to advance the cause. Obama is ,therefore, on track to transform/socialize the USA at any price. Your November vote will be the first step in stopping his corruption.
To paraphrase the Nazi Minister of Culture, early 1940s at a screening of “decadent art,” in an aside to Hermann Goering: “When I hear the word ‘Socialism,’ that’s when I reach for my revolver.”
How true and how unfortunate that the American public and the Lame Stream Media did not look closely into the past of this guy birthplace unknown, historical documents all HIDDEN who was born to a Black British Muslim Communist Father and a feckless Communist immature Mother adopted by a Muslim stepfather and schooled and brought up as a Muslim in Indonesia, where you HAD to be a citizen to attend school, before being sent back to his Communist Grandparents in Hawaii and mentored by a Black Communist homosexual before going to College and mixing with Radical Muslims and far left Socialists and Racist Blacks and traveling to Pakistan with one of the Radical Muslims and being mentored by an American Terrorist who most probably ghost wrote at least one of his books and who associated with criminals in his adopted home Chicago . What a surprise American voters were too naive, gullible and stupid to see any of it . But ALL of it was there and easily available online and people were saying it out loud long long before the USA committed suicide by voting him in to power.
I would prefer to call Obamunism “the socialist two-step.” It closely resembles the Islamic two-step of having their mouthpieces scream “Peace! Peace! We are for peace!” while jihadists rake the crowds with automatic-weapons fire. Obama and his minions tell us repeatedly that he believes in the market, that he’s actually “pro-business,” while he goes about nationalizing major corporations, regulating everything in sight, and generally acting in complete contradiction to those pro-market / pro-business claims.
The degree of cognitive dissonance required to accept such words and deeds is beyond my comprehension. But it got Obama into office. Our task now is to remove him from it. That might not be easy.
I am all for hope and change: I HOPE we kick Obama to da curb so we can CHANGE things back to the way they should be!
All of these ‘isms’ Communism, Socialism, Islamic radicalism, liberalism, and humanism, have one common goal. It is not, as one might think, the end of the American nation. These various isms WANT the American nation, they crave our industrial might, they crave our productivity, they crave our land mass, they covet everything we have.
The common goal of the above mentioned isms IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LAST CHRISTIAN NATION. Whether the last two generations (the last three if we consider a generation 20 years) actually believe that we are still or ever were a Christian nation is irrelevent. Our Founding Fathers believed it and those generations after them up until 1950 or so believed it. We were Christian in our belief-system, our laws sprung from Christianity, our societal mores came from Christianity. Christianity was the pre-dominant theme of how we as a nation conducted ourselves. Even though every single person was not a Christian, Christianity influenced the growth of our country. The Supreme Court believed it and so ruled in Holy Trinity vs US in 1892. This is simply unacceptable to the Magogists, those opposed to religion in general and Christianity in particular. The thought that any nation on earth would DARE to continue to uphold Christianity in this ‘time of enlightenment and human evolution’ is to them outrageous, and so they must attack that nation at its foundation. (The fact that Islam is involved is of little consequence, Islam is a useful tool to these enemies of God; once they destroy America, they will turn on Islam like a rabid dog and kill it.)
“For several years now”? Really? By my computer clock, it’s 2010 and 2008 was 2 years ago – so Kurtz has been endeavoring in some sort of time warp where time passes much quicker? Cool. If true, that is. But given Kurtz’s sorry record, it’s probably just more rubbish.
I’d like to see an honest book from a right winger for a change, something with a title like, oh say, “Supporting Bad People, Smearing Good People: Why I Suck”.
Dude, you seriously linked to that quack? But if all you’re inclined to do is disparage and snipe, I can see why you’d be drawn to a blogger like that and feel compelled to link to him. What “sorry record”? All he does is reiterate the issues Kurtz brings up. He says nothing to debunk or disprove anything Kurtz says. He hasn’t read the book and has no intention of buying it. Why should I care what he thinks about something he hasn’t read?
I am still a little taken back when I read another commentary about Obama’s roots and his socialist core as if it is something just uncovered. When the book, “Dreams from my Father” was first made known to me, I bought a copy (cheap paperback of course) and read it cover to cover, then went back over it to analyze it, chapter by chapter. Anyone with a modicum of reasoning ability could not come to any other conclusion about Obama than the obvious facts:
1. The man has never and never will connect to America in the truest sense of the word. He was born in Hawaii, moved to Indonesia for most of his formative years, then returned to Hawaii until he left for Occidental in California when he was about 20.
2. During his formative years, he was exposed on a daily basis to Islam through his adoptive stepfather and attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia. His biological father was a non-practicing Muslim. The religion of Islam was a real presence in his life until he moved back to Hawaii to live with his very liberal grandparents.
3. Obama was, for all practical purposes, raised and influenced in his youth by a liberal, far right grandfather who, in my opinion, instilled in Obama a deep seated dislike for America. His mother was not an influence to the degree other people were but her lifestyle was anything but moderate, bordering on Marxism, without doubt, socialism.
4. Obama chose to associate with the radical element of the day and his mentor in Hawaii was a well known activist against America.
5. Obama was and is still conflicted about his racial pedigree. He resents the white side of his parentage and has shown it on every occasion that arises. His instinctive defense of the Harvard professor was one of the tells he displayed. When asked, if he were truly a post racial person, he would have responded with a “no comment” answer. Instead, his deep resentment of caucasians in general invoked a subconscious response that invaded his conscious level and he “chose” to respond as he did. If he was not a racist at the conscious level, he would have answered differently.
6. When he referred to the rage he felt when he realized his grandmother was a racist at heart after the incident at the bus stop, that should have been the key to understanding the man immediately. The woman who paid his way through life, the woman who rose to the top at the bank she worked at in Hawaii, the woman who was the real bread winner in the family, later on became the woman he threw under the bus. The other tell in the incident was the reaction by his grandfather to his grandmother’s comments about the incident. He was outraged and offended by her fears, which if you read the book, were not unfounded. She was honest but that made no difference to Obama or his grandfather. Not once did he make reference to any incident in his book about his grandmother demonstrating or displaying racism at any level. If she was the racist at heart he tried to tell us she was, there would have been other references to support his claim.
Obama has made choices through his life based on his core beliefs and dedication to a cause or principle. His friendship with Ayers and other radicals is by choice, not chance. His choice to become a community organizer was by choice, deeply affected by his upbringing. He lived the life most of us did not nor will never have. Life in Hawaii during his teen years. Educated at one of the most prestigious private schools on the island, living with grandparents who were by no means underpriviledged and did not need public assistance of any kind.
If one were to take all of the elements of his life and do an honest evaluation, the conclusion would a foregone one. He is at heart and soul, a die-hard socialist. He will not abandon his core beliefs and convictions. He will use anyone to further his agenda and has demonstrated this time after time. And, he does and will consciously enjoy the perks and priviledges of the ruling elite class on every occasion because he believes it is his right and the rewards are rightfully due him and his family.
Finally, after reading the book and listening to him speak and reading some of his other writings, the styles and choices of descriptive language offers many conflicts. The man is conflicted about many things but on one, he is not. Obama is a true socialist and will never change. He will continue to push his agenda until the day he is voted out of office and until that day comes, he will use his power to enact and force changes on this country that are not welcome nor are they good for America.
Spot On! And that is the ONLY reason a “Black” canidate was “chosen” by the progressive so the race card could be used for EVERY discretion possible.
But alas we won 11/02 – My vote was to halt the Obama agenda first and foremost…PERIOD! It is an uphill battle from here folks. Keep the Clintons at bay. They are just commie light. Stand Firm, Stand Ready!
Live Free or Die!
Very interesting, thank you.
The more we know, the easier will be the long battle that we will have to fight.
But let’s not make the mistake to center our attention on one man only: his role IS decisive now, but the subversives who have brought him to power must be taken into consideration too. The large numbers of marxists in the media and in the universities are the result of the famous gramscian “long march through the institutions” and will not disappear magically after the elections in November nor in 2012 if we will win the battle for Freedom.
And the marxist subversives are helped by the money of the muslim enemies of America, and by the internationalist elitists.
The way is long.
Let’s pray, let’s be confident in the help of God.
The past is never dead and neither are Democratic voters. This administration keeps paying them out of the stimulus, well into the afterlife.
The dead and the incarcerated are being paid checks out of the stimulus. Only half the checks to the dead have been returned, apparently.
Also apparently, it’s not only decaying and necrotic ideas that hold value for leftists. It’s just that American extreme leftists are such imbeciles, they didn’t get the Soviet system down pat. Bribe the living useful idiots and ignore the bodies piling up in the cemeteries.
Our leftist twits in office ignore their own useful idiots and bribe the dead. How do these morons get dressed in the morning?
There’s a stereotype which holds that (as it relates to matters of politics, governance, international relations, espionage, etc.) Russians are just about the smartest, most devious, double-dealing population on the planet. It also holds that Americans are straightforward, level-one-thinking, simpletons by comparison.
Maybe it applies to our Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, etc. too — not just to regular Americans.
I just recently ran across the August 2008 WEEKLY STANDARD issue that had Kurtz’s referenced article: BARACK OBMAMA’S LOST YEARS/The senator’s tenure as a state legislator reveals him to be an old-fashioned, big-government, race-conscious liberal….
It, along with WEEKLY STANDARD editor Andrew Furgeson’s cover peice some months earlier (using Obamas DREAMS FROM MY FATHER as the pretext to examine his background), stood in stark contrast to the adoring press coverage he received prior to election.
I can’t wait for a chance to read Kurtz’s book.
For one I want, just as the troll BC whines about from his usual left perch here at PJM, a chance to have someone I already trust to produce credible journalism tackling the important challange of vetting who this guy is.
Second, I want the further oppertunity to compare his findings with what, in my opinion, partisan supporters David Remnick and Jonathan Alterman have written. Alterman’s work is more apologist and speculative – sort of a wish fullfillment fantasy about what he HOPES the Obama presidency will become, while Remnick claims to have brought the same approach to Obama as he did the prize winning observations about the fall of the Soviet Union.
Since the Troll BC threw the drinking game of suggesting titles into the mix it would have been better had Alterman chosen the following – ‘THE PROCESS:How Barack Obama can Redesign America as Denmark, Subversively lay the infrastructure for real one-world government, earn his second Nobel, and Save the Humbacks while lowering the earths temp 10 Degrees all before lunch and the 2010 midterms’.
But it’s Remnick who has really taken the podium as the most ardent Hagographer to date. Not only has the ‘pulitzer’ writer, who just happens to be the same New Yorker editor who took a lot of heat for running the election year cover of Obama in Bin Laden get up and Michelle as Angela Davis circa 1972, remained the most vocal critic of anyone who has dared doubt Obama’s past as suspect, he has also promoted a stable of writers at that magazine who have been among Obama’s loudest cheerleaders for his adgenda.
Anyone who caught his recent prime time as well as C-Span readings when promoting his book THE BRIDGE:The Life and Rise of Barack Obama -has caught the act and thus should be so schooled.
No one on the planet has a bigger man crush on the One than David Remnick.
Besides the kinds of diatribes where Remnick let loose on everyone from Glen Beck to Dinesh D’Souza’s recent article,[which Beck did a masterful job of disassembling for explaination with D'Souza's help on his show] Remnick partook this past summer in the final oppertunity the left has had to frame Obama exclusively from their rose-colored perspective, if for no other reason that the simple passing of time.
Not only is there now a specific set of facts that have presented themselves since Jan 2008, there has been the oppertunity to go rummaging through the facts of Obama’s life prior to his election for those with the ability and time to do so.
We the public are no longer prisoners largely of the OPINONS of others when it comes to BHO.
So, while folks like Remnick are off suggesting that the Tea Party is akin to the John Birchers in the 50′s [explicitly licensing violence - a direct quote the man has insisted many times - all to the histronic delight of tools like BC], at the same time he insists that he has meticulously researched the Obama’s lives – both Barack and Michelle as well, we no longer are left to merely take his and his publishers word for it.
Now at last, we will have a chance to see. And to see beyond just the selective pastiche of Glen Becks infotainment which the left implicitly dismisses as not credible.
I for one am looking forward to answers to many questions.
Not the least are what writings have remained hidden prior to winning the Senate – or doing a comparison contrast with the MBA grades of former ‘dunce in chief’ George Bush and the progression of A’s that followed formerly Barry through his Name Change moments into Harvard. Or why all the secrecy with what otherwise is public record? And who kept the records under lock?
Lots and lots of unanswered questions people like David Remnick can’t exclusively edit anymore.
Thanks again Roger Kimbell for keeping us in the know!!
Bull.
He’s only a riddle to the willfully blind.
His supporters know who he is and his opponents know who he is. We probably know more about his life and philosophy now than any president we have ever had.
He was successful during the campaign in hiding his past in plain sight, with the criminal allegiance of the marxist media, but any fool can now see who he is and most are well aware of it.
The problem now is two-fold. a) there are simply many Americans who just refuse to admit to themselves the mortal danger of the man’s radicalism, and his many many strange and blatantly un-American characteristics, and: b) he and his cabal have firmly grasped the reins of power and they have (they think) 2 more years to ravage this country.
November has to be viewed as the first step in intense two year campaign to rid ourselves of this scorpion. Not only can’t we relax, we have to increase the intenstity level to convince the moral degenerates in Congress that their own lives and livlihoods are at stake if they don’t immediately bend to the will of the American people.
We can’t wait 2 more years. It will be impossible to disengage the cancerous tentacles by then. The counter has to be now, beginning Nov 2. Whatever it takes. Life or death.
As Rush would say…Right On, Right On!!!
I don’t wonder if Obama is a socialist. I’m convinced that he is. Read his book “Tales From My Father” then do a little research on dad. Do a little research on Frank Marshall Davis too. Obama wrote that this man was his mentor. Mr. Davis was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
http://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/FrankMarshallDavis.htm
Then there’s also the fact that the socialist organization known as the New Party helped to get Obama elected in 1996. Here is a quote from the New Party News Spring 1996 page 1…
“New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)…”these victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work’ said Obama”.
The New Party page on Wikipedia had Obama listed as a member, then later removed.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/09/wikipedia-new-party-page-now-includes-barack-obama-name
Some of these New Party members are suspected terrorists and were raided by the FBI last month.
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/09/terror-suspects-were-active-in-obamas.html
Then consider how Obama uses the phrase “spread the wealth”.
Here are a few quote from Ayn Rand about socialism -
Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.
“For the New Intellectual,” 43.
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 86.
There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all corners, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.
When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 91.
When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare.
No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror on so vast a scale.
Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 87.
The socialists had a certain kind of logic on their side: if the collective sacrifice of all to all is the moral ideal, then they wanted to establish this ideal in practice, here and on this earth. The arguments that socialism would not and could not work, did not stop them: neither has altruism ever worked, but this has not caused men to stop and question it. Only reason can ask such questions—and reason, they were told on all sides, has nothing to do with morality, morality lies outside the realm of reason, no rational morality can ever be defined.
The fallacies and contradictions in the economic theories of socialism were exposed and refuted time and time again, in the Nineteenth Century as well as today. This did not and does not stop anyone: it is not an issue of economics, but of morality. The intellectuals and the so-called idealists were determined to make socialism work. How? By that magic means of all irrationalists: somehow.
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 68.
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.
“Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapon,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 9, 1962, G2
Both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government.
Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property,” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.
In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say “more honest,” not “better”—because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government—and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 202.
Here are some of her quotes about “spreading the wealth” -
If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.
“The Dead End,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 20, 2.
Observe that any social movement which begins by “redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices.
“The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 98.
Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 91.
Ayn Rand witnessed the Russian revolution and left Russia in 1926 at the age of 21. Maybe she knew what she was talking about.
It’s fascinating to read some of these comments. Do any of you actually know what a marxist is, or for that matter a socialist? It is most obvious that you don’t have a clue.
Were Obama a socialist he would be working towards government ownership and control of all the major companies in this country. GM is working towards getting rid of its government stock and repaying its bailout? Did I miss the government takeover of Microsoft, Wallmart, Exxon, etc.
Obama is a democratic liberal, far too much for my taste, but shouting nonsense louder and louder is….wait, do they allow 1st graders to comment on this forum?
Are you really as ignorant as you seem to be or just another MoveOn/DailyKos troll with a keyboard? The participants on this blog are far more intelligent than you are apparently willing to give them credit for. By the very construction of your comments, your denigrating attitude toward those of us who rightfully apply the socialist label to Obama is a dead giveaway.
If you understand the Alinsky Rules for Radicals, which I think you do, the take-over and reshaping of our system will not be accomplished by or with one concentrated frontal assault. It will be accomplished by winning one skirmish at a time, hedge row to hedge row, winning enough small firefights until the target is under complete control. Slowly, surely, and methodically moving private enterprise under the ever tightening control of the government until the day comes when private enterprise is no longer capable of operating without complete and total government oversight. The government doesn’t have to outright own a corporation to have it under total control, especially when it has a watchdog to keep it in line through ownership of a lion’s share of stock, given to the union free gratis – UAW strike a familiar chord with you?
Your specious comments are a dead giveaway, exposing the connection to your MoveOn/DailyKos roots.
Pfew, I just realized your intended double entendre. At first, I thought that you were wearing tinted eyeglasses, or that you were color blind.
Is Obama really a Communist, or just a decadent dilettante and another slick street hustler, who has seized an oppotunity to empower himself by manipulating and exploiting the ditziness of white liberals? (You know, those clueless, peculiar, little lemmings like BC, who are following Obama right off a cliff.)
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Barry Hussein Obama’s controlled Pentagon had three Navy SEALs who faced assault charges for capturing one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq. Why?
Next, WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 /Christian Newswire/ — Christian faith leaders stunned by reports that President Obama would have an ornament of the image of Mao Zedong hanging on the White House Christmas tree.
Next, Wednesday, April 15, 2009. Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram “IHS”–symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there.
That didn’t take long?
Saul David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer best known for his book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing and his teachings have influenced several prominent national leaders including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Fred Ross. In fact, Fred Ross, who worked for Alinsky, was the principal mentor for Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. Hillary Clinton’s senior honors thesis on Saul Alinsky, written at Wellesley College, noted that Alinsky’s personal efforts were a large part of his method. As The Nation magazine puts it, “Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing. . In 1988 Mr. Obama wrote an article which later became the fourth chapter of a book, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.
In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published in 1971 one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” Here is Saul Alinsky’s dedication to his own book: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer. Yes, that’s right folks, Saul Alinsky dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to Satan. That is in fact the essence of what it means to be a radical — to be willing to destroy the values, structures and institutions that sustain the society we live in. Marx himself famously cited Alinsky’s first rebel (using another of his names, Mephistopheles): “Everything that exists deserves to perish.” “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties. When asked about death, Alinsky replied “They’ll send me to hell — and I’ll organize it.”
Does anyone remember that the Obamas got their theses sealed?
Does anyone want to bet that those theses don’t have a decidedly Marxist bent to them?
(1) Fascism is nationalist socialis. Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist party in Italy to support Italy in World War I after he, a leader of the Italian Socialist Party, had opposed supporting Italy because it was socialist doctrine that war was only between the ruling (capitalist) classes Mussolini changed his mind and founded the Fascist party as a socialist party which supported Italy.
(2) Note that Barack Obama’s mentor, Bill Ayers, has just been denied the title of Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois, having retired from the Department (?) of Education. Christopher Kennedy is on the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, and he discovered that one of Ayers’ books supporting violent revolution to establish Communism, was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy, Chris Kennedy’s father. So Chris Kennedy voted against Ayers’ request for the title of Professor Emeritus, and all the other trustees agreed with him. (Now let us hope that these trustees will investigate what has been happening at the University of Illinois, that it would employ Ayers in ny capacity.)
Americans who speak about Obama and mention socialism, Marxist Communism and his Muslim experience miss the main theme of his book.
Forget about all those labels. Obama is not even an African-American; that is just another label given to him.
The man is an African Political Thug like Mandela, Mugabe, Jomo Kenyatta; the list goes on and on. They don’t believe in “all those fancy labels” either; the only thing that counts is personal power because that sooths the ego on the road to glory and immense wealth for the one who has the power.
People, be they white or their own black masses, mean nothing to them. And Obama is the worst modern day one having been born at the right time to put him in the age and position right now to go for World Glory. The American Presidency is just a handy stepping stone in the current madness to have one Central World Order, and He wants that more than anyone has ever wanted anything in his life.
You have a monster in the White House but a small chance to end it on November 2nd and will rue the day if you don’t end his run for power now.
“..to push the country into socialism well before the public can figure out what’s happened..”
How can/did the public NOT see this occurring? There were/are MANY books on Obama – heck even his fictitious, ghost written ‘autobio’ spelled out what this man is.
Roger, as the song goes, ‘Tell it like it is’. The majority of the population is too forgiving, too forgetful, too myopic, far too trusting in a then 47 year old man (the most radical/liberal in the Senate, when voting that is) to ‘change his stripes’.
The information WAS laid out for the inquisitive masses to dissect, evaluate. Though ignored every intuition given to us since being ascended beings.. pathetic.
If Obama was a true socialist, the public option would have never been taken off the table. The final bill was a wrong-minded attempt to encourage the recalcitrant opposition party to take part in solving a health care system that was failing millions of Americans. I would prefer to trust the intentions of a voter-approved government than a profit-minded business.
The police are a socialistic organization as are the fire departments, post office, social security administration, Medicare, Veterans Administration, Forestry Departments, National Parks, and on and on. Not all without fault, but their biggest threat is the simple-minded notion that free enterprise will provide is a better or a more equitable product.
Profit-only businesses such as those on Wall Street and the nation’s banks led us to brink of destruction if it weren’t for the brave leadership from both of the parties that matter. They acted socially, for what they believed was the only reasonable alternative.
Karl Marx once said that there would never be a military war with the capitalist countries because “Capitalism left unchecked will feed on itself and self destruct”. What he didn’t realize was that governments can and will regulate their markets for as long as we have the political will to do so.
As for not knowing who Obama is, how much vetting do you need? Does his multi-cultural origins disqualify him for office? I would argue it makes him far more suitable. He distinguished himself in his studies, graduated from rigorous institutions on merit alone! His tenure at the Harvard Law Review was noted for his centrist approach, preferring academics and a healthy exchange of ideas over partisanship. It’s all well recorded documented fact. His ambitions thus far has not approached those of John F. Kennedy in terms of shifting America to its potential.
He distinguished himself in his studies, graduated from rigorous institutions on merit alone!
An interesting statement, in that Barack Obama has kept his entire academic record under tight wraps and we’ve never seen one iota of it.
I think he must have gotten C’s and D’s at Columbia, if he even attended.
C & D’s won’t get you into Harvard Law School. You may not agree with his policies but the man is seriously smart.
Barack and Michelle both got some unusual help along the way in their academic careers. Michelle wouldn’t have been admitted to Princton without Affirmative Action.
(we have a lot of marginally intelligent people serving in public office thanks to affirmative action, which is a big aspect of the degradation of American politics)
What published academic record exists for this pair (scant for Michelle, non-existent for Barack) indicates no particular intellectual achievement, especially the travesty known as Michelle’s Senior thesis at Princeton, rife with weak thinking and even misspellings.
It was weird to be lectured at by this couple during the campaign, Michelle on Americans’ laziness and meanness and her husband’s observations on bitter clingers and the like.
Though they have the moxie, they hardly have the credentials to declaim on Americans. That they dared to do it is an indication of profound arrogance coupled with genuine stupidity.
Since Obama has been President, we’ve been treated to such intellectual feats as 57 states and his (false) modestly proclaiming to an international audience that he doesn’t speak “Austrian”.
The guy is petrified of speaking without the TOTUS, which should indicate to you that he is petrified of making (more) gaffes.
I’ve never seen evidence of this “seriously smart” thing of which you seem to be convinced. Since there is no viewable academic record for Obama and nothing much published (including at Harvard law), it’s hard to imagine how you have become such a True Believer.
“stealth socialism.” The goal, Kurtz writes, is “to push the country into socialism well before the public can figure out what’s happened. Stealth-socialism community organizers habitually disguise their long-term goals.
Stealth socialism, stealth jihad.
A congruence of stealthiness. None of these men is honorable.
…supply the friends of liberty with the backbone to push back.
The November election is the first step in reversing the stealth course set by this president and his coterie of fellow travelers.
Sink or swim time for America.